Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First images from Euclid are in

dlmultimedia.esa.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 404 posts

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#71

Post by jiggawatts »

bigiain wrote: post #50
virtue3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Astronomer Frank Drake created a formula to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way. Adam Frank and Woodruff Sullivan modified the equation to calculate the odds that Earth was the first intelligent life in the universe. They concluded that the odds of Earth being the first are less than one in 10 billion trillion, which suggests that other intelligent species have likely evolved." 1 i…

That 600 times zoom-in on 1% of the eventual survey of 1/3rd of the non milky way sky... Shows a couple of galaxies, which if the milky way is "typical" represent a couple of billion stars. Suddenly 1 in 10 billion trillion odds doesn't seem so (and I apologise in advance for this) astronomical...

Typical galaxies the size of the Milky Way have 100 to 2,000 billion stars and could have as many as ten trillion planets.

That’s about 100^5, so one way to think of this is that if you categories these by any four properties (temperature, stability, hydration, day length) then you’d expect about 100 samples for any point in that 4D space.

So even if you believe Earth is unique along four critical metrics, there are about a hundred planets per galaxy that also have those attributes within a percentage point. If you allow some wiggle room then you have tens of thousands or even millions.

We know conditions here on Earth varied significantly more than 1% over billions of years and life survived and even thrived.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#72

Post by downboots »

neom wrote: post #10

Some of that zooming in made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. It really is f'ing massive out there huh. Makes me wonder what this is all about, I'm sure it's something, I wonder what. :)

To my limited knowledge it's not even clear what the edges are but I think it's probably safe to say that the bigger it is, the more complexity you can cram in there.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#73

Post by frabjoused »

imchillyb wrote: post #66
wayoverthecloud wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that too. That it's surely meant to be something. But sometimes I think what does "meaning" even mean? Does universe really have any "meaning", the term that humans invented and that even they are unsure of? Then, I think it's a big randomness, a random accident, a big joke, just happening with nothing to make sense of.

So many rules, laws, and systems for all of this to be random. Seems a waste of good code if everything is random. Is an ecosystem random? What happens when one outside force is added to an ecosystem? There's plenty of examples around the globe of this. Life doesn't 'find a way' and balance. The ecosystem is damaged, and often times destroyed by adding a single non-native species. That doesn't seem random does it? Ra…

My money is on it just being a playing field for the game of life. A damn good one at that.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#74

Post by kjkjadksj »

m3kw9 wrote: post #15
ekianjo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life? Probably. Something that has thinking capabilities? Much more doubtful.

One proof is that we are thinking, and so are dogs, cats and monkeys to a lesser extent.

That’s hardly proof considering these examples all share a common ancestor. I ask you, can you communicate with a slime mold? Even the slime mold is more similar to ourselves than any potential life we’d find elsewhere, as we share a common ancestor.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#75

Post by frabjoused »

stouset wrote: post #16
lfmunoz4 wrote: post #13

600x zoom didn't seem to help from the 150x zoom. Wonder if we will ever be able to see actual planet surfaces or we need some other technology to do that, i.e, we should have small satellites every 10 light years. but this map is amazing and a good step forward. Edit: Was just thinking that image does us tells us something i.e, there no large artificial structures or billboards anywhere we can see. Maybe I watch too…

There is zero way to optically resolve an exoplanet’s surface without something like a gravitational lens.

If light is hitting it, can you explain why not?

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#76

Post by kjkjadksj »

ekianjo wrote: post #17
m3kw9 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One proof is that we are thinking, and so are dogs, cats and monkeys to a lesser extent.

That's Earth. There is no model to say that life always goes on that way. We just have no clue.

And thats just how life on earth happened to iterate in recent terms. For most of the history of life on earth, it was unicellular. It could have just as easily remained a planet of unicellular life for another few billion years if it weren’t for a few chance mutations that happened to be slightly more competitive over the background.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#77

Post by andsoitis »

imchillyb wrote: post #66
wayoverthecloud wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that too. That it's surely meant to be something. But sometimes I think what does "meaning" even mean? Does universe really have any "meaning", the term that humans invented and that even they are unsure of? Then, I think it's a big randomness, a random accident, a big joke, just happening with nothing to make sense of.

So many rules, laws, and systems for all of this to be random. Seems a waste of good code if everything is random. Is an ecosystem random? What happens when one outside force is added to an ecosystem? There's plenty of examples around the globe of this. Life doesn't 'find a way' and balance. The ecosystem is damaged, and often times destroyed by adding a single non-native species. That doesn't seem random does it? Ra…

> Randomness should have error correction, as it's random.

Randomness itself doesn't have error correction, but systems that generate or use randomness may have checks to ensure they function correctly. Error correction applies to data or signal integrity, which is a separate concept from pure randomness.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#78

Post by vasco »

lefrenchy wrote: post #63

It's just so crazy to me to see a galaxy 420 million light years away. That is so much time for what we're seeing to have changed. I presume life can form within that window given the right conditions, so to some degree it just feels a bit sad that the distance is so great that we can't actually see what may exist in this moment that far away

In another way it's really cool to be able to "see the past" even if all we see is always the past. At this level it is like a super power. If only some aliens had put a mirror somewhere far so we could see ourselves too. Or multiple mirrors at different distances.

With enough mirrors and light bouncing around the size of the universe itself can be a "storage media" of the past with different photons all around carrying "how this location looked X years ago". "All" you have to do to know what happened is find the right photon to see whatever it is you want to see.

Re: First images from Euclid are in

#80

Post by smaddox »

geenkeuse wrote: post #51
smaddox wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exponential slowdowns at each level ruin this hypothesis.

The documents I copied are not as sharp as the original, so the photocopier must not exist.

Photocopying has little to do with simulation of the physical world.

First of all, Bits != Q-bits. You can clone bits. You can't clone Q-bits: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem

Second, photocopies are static. The physical world is not static.

Post reply on HN